A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"But, that's OK."

No it isn't. If you are going to make a case against evolution, you better understand it yourself. [/B]
? - They do. They just don't agree with it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"There's more of it than you know."

Oh yes, blame it on something else. "Those scientist are just brainwashed and won't let any new ideas in."[/B]
This was just a statement that there is more contesting than you think. There are debates that go on all the time. Aren't you aware of them? There are articles written against it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It is a well known fact that it is still the "Theory of Evolution" vs. the "Law of Evolution." And it's still that way for very good reasons. There are many scientists with grave doubts about it.

I'm glad you have it down that its a theory to lay people, but to a majority of scientist with knowledge in this field, it isn't. It's a fact.[/B]
People who are in a specific field often get caught up that their field is the most important and it is, of course, fact to them. But the world still calls it a theory for a very good reason. And there are many top notch scientists who still acknowledge it as theory, too. We would get along a lot better if you would just allow the simple fact that you fully believe in it, but it's still not established law. Am I asking for too much? Laws are accepted as laws. Theories have a way to go, and they may even get scrapped.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Now you're calling it genetic material? Wow. Hydrocarbons are genetic material?

OK, I want you to explain to me what YOU believe this process to be. Give me your explanation of this self-replicating process."


Once it begins to self replicate, that is genetic material, its passing instructions onto its copies.

Hydrocarbons are not genetic material. They need to organize and begin to self replicate first. In order to do this, they need certain conditions around them and a spark.

I am not expert on the process itself. As I have told you, I deal mostly with cosmology. I have linked sites in my post however that detail the process. [/B]
I've read the links. I don't believe you can classify what happens as "self-replication." It's no more self-replication than a gravity inducing a big rock falling down and making smaller rocks. I would like you to put this in your own words so I can see where you're coming from. I don't see how it could contribute to real life any more than gravity induced earthquakes & falling rocks could eventually bring about the Great Pyramid.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"So now lies are only lies when you interpret the situation to be where someone else shouldn't be "freaking out"?

I'm not freaking out. I'm just not letting you off the hook until you count it as a lie."


No, its not a lie beause it's meaningless and, just because I changed my mind after you made another stupid post doesn't quite equal what you are pursuing.[/B]
I'm pursuing that you told a lie. Therefore it is perfectly equal. 86, you need to admit this one. You have no right to determine if it is meaningless or not. The receiver does. You told the statement to me/the board. It wasn't a statement you never made or only pondered in your own head. You made a plain & direct declaration and then intentionally violated it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, which is the worse type of lie. But, it's a fact it meets the criteria of one of the definitions of a lie.

1. to make an untrue statement
2. to create a false or misleading impression

Since your statements were untrue, and they definitely created a false or misleading impression to me & others, it was a lie.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's still possible for you to put it there. You're just not willing to keep your word on it. It's a couple clicks away, but "you can count on me" is not really doing it for me right now."

Yes it is, but I'm not going to go out of my way to put it in every post. I'd just assume not having a quote in my sig. Mr. Hawk stalkerish feeling to me. [/B]
Well, then you can sympathize with me. You said I could count on it. What am I supposed to now think?

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"But the point is that it's not up to you to determine my argument. It's MY argument, not yours. I don't have to make YOUR connection. You have to connect to what I AM saying when it is MY argument. You don't get to jump to the next logical step and claim I'm using it already."

The argument that the brain is too complex to have formed through evolution is exactly the same as the argument against consciousness. So I'm not in error in my interpretation. That was a logical jump. They are one in the same. [/B]
No, it is not the exact same argument. Again, you don't have the right to determine what MY argument is. You've already been informed I think that is another step. You surely don't talk this way in class or in discussions with your friends, do you? Do you mutate their arguments for them, too? When they tell you they like very rich ice cream do you tell them they then certainly must like Coldstone's ice cream, even when they plainly say they don't? After all, they are one in the same to you? Do you have any teeth left, 86?
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"But, that's OK."

No it isn't. If you are going to make a case against evolution, you better understand it yourself.

"There's more of it than you know."
This sucks, I just typed a whole page and it is gone.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
"But, that's OK."



No it isn't. If you are going to make a case against evolution, you better understand it yourself.



? - They understand it just fine. They just don't agree with it.



"There's more of it than you know."



Oh yes, blame it on something else. "Those scientist are just brainwashed and won't let any new ideas in."



? - I'm referring to the fact there is far more dissension than you know. They are articles being written. There are debates going on.



It is a well known fact that it is still the "Theory of Evolution" vs. the "Law of Evolution." And it's still that way for very good reasons. There are many scientists with grave doubts about it.



I'm glad you have it down that its a theory to lay people, but to a majority of scientist with knowledge in this field, it isn't. It's a fact.



Those in their respective fields are often obsessed with their own self-importance and their findings in their field are "fact." I believe there is a gigantic conflict of interest going on. The world doesn't believe it to be a law for a good reason, and so does a growing body of scientists. The world accepts laws when they are laws. They don't fight the law of gravity. It's just a theory and therefore may be scrapped some day. And as I've said on here many times before, I believe that is an eventuality.



"Now you're calling it genetic material? Wow. Hydrocarbons are genetic material?

OK, I want you to explain to me what YOU believe this process to be. Give me your explanation of this self-replicating process."




Once it begins to self replicate, that is genetic material, its passing instructions onto its copies.

Hydrocarbons are not genetic material. They need to organize and begin to self replicate first. In order to do this, they need certain conditions around them and a spark.

I am not expert on the process itself. As I have told you, I deal mostly with cosmology. I have linked sites in my post however that detail the process.



You previously referred to it as genetic material. It is not. I don't see how it is any more "self-replicating" than gravity inducing a big rock to fall down and make more rocks. And I don't see it as genetic material any more than I see a falling rock "pyramid material." The distance and steps to become so are vast. I suppose this theory means that if we just set down a bunch of automobiles on the right planet and let them continually pollute it with hydrocarbons there would eventually be humanoids on the planet.



"So now lies are only lies when you interpret the situation to be where someone else shouldn't be "freaking out"?

I'm not freaking out. I'm just not letting you off the hook until you count it as a lie."




No, its not a lie beause it's meaningless and, just because I changed my mind after you made another stupid post doesn't quite equal what you are pursuing.



First, just because you deem it meaningless, doesn't make it not a lie. Second, it wasn't meaningless to me and others. You made a direct declaration to this board and to me. It wasn't just a fanciful thought in your mind only to you. You made it publc. And it wasn't vague and it had no caveats. It was a lie and meets the criteria for a definition of a lie. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a premeditated lie.



1. to make an untrue statement.
2. to create a false or misleading impression.



Well, you certainly made an untrue statement and you certainly gave me and others a false impression. It's not good to live in this denial. And it doesn't build a bridge to help people understand your overall thoughts.




"It's still possible for you to put it there. You're just not willing to keep your word on it. It's a couple clicks away, but "you can count on me" is not really doing it for me right now."[/B]



Yes it is, but I'm not going to go out of my way to put it in every post. I'd just assume not having a quote in my sig. Mr. Hawk stalkerish feeling to me.



Well, then you can understand how "You can count on me" doesn't really mean very much in this specific instance. What you really mean is "You can count on me, unless I arbitrarily just change my mind."



"But the point is that it's not up to you to determine my argument. It's MY argument, not yours. I don't have to make YOUR connection. You have to connect to what I AM saying when it is MY argument. You don't get to jump to the next logical step and claim I'm using it already."



The argument that the brain is too complex to have formed through evolution is exactly the same as the argument against consciousness. So I'm not in error in my interpretation. That was a logical jump. They are one in the same.



This point is either beyond you or you're just too stubborn right now to admit it. I don't believe it is the first. You're too smart. I know my argument and you didn't interpret it correctly. The sentience step is another step to me. Do you speak like this in your classes? Do you talk this way to your friends? Do you have any teeth left? I suspect if your friend says, "I like very rich ice cream, but I don't like Coldstone ice cream," you would respond, "Yes, you do like it. Coldstone is very rich and therefore it is one and the same."
This post was edited on 3/7 11:23 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
OK, it was obvious, but I'm going to explain why this is a bogus analogy. It's "preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed." There's the problem. The play "Hamelt" never would have survived if it was written this way, just as life would never survive if the code was written this way. In this silly scenario of course it would be written, but this scenario doesn't exist. It's preserving letters that happen to be in place. If the book took a mere 200 years to compose it never would have been composed or kept around long enough to magically finish because there was nothing worth keeping but random letters until it was all put together. Similarly, life never would have developed because it would have never survived the millions of years because random pieces of the code wouldn't have made it viable for even one single step. The play isn't viable unless it's virtually all there and neither is life.

No, the truth is maintained. It's statistically impossible for one single cell to develop randomly. And nobody has, nor will they ever be able to truly explain it. It is one of the evolutionsts' greatest leaps in faith. And reading futile attempts to explain the first RNA/DNA, let alone a single cell is pure mysticism. It's like reading the Catholic Church's theory on the immaculate conception.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"Those in their respective fields are often obsessed with their own self-importance and their findings in their field are "fact." I believe there is a gigantic conflict of interest going on. The world doesn't believe it to be a law for a good reason, and so does a growing body of scientists. The world accepts laws when they are laws. They don't fight the law of gravity. It's just a theory and therefore may be scrapped some day. And as I've said on here many times before, I believe that is an eventuality."

You believe their is a conflict of interest because your side has failed to introduce any valuable evidence. Science is not at all the same as religion. When there is conflicting evidence that firts the scientific method, people will notice. The ID scientists don't even deal with science.

"You previously referred to it as genetic material. It is not. I don't see how it is any more "self-replicating" than gravity inducing a big rock to fall down and make more rocks. And I don't see it as genetic material any more than I see a falling rock "pyramid material." The distance and steps to become so are vast. I suppose this theory means that if we just set down a bunch of automobiles on the right planet and let them continually pollute it with hydrocarbons there would eventually be humanoids on the planet."

Again, you are grossly misrepresenting what is going on. I have a couple of links in this thread that provide solid scientific evidence on how the process goes.

"First, just because you deem it meaningless, doesn't make it not a lie. Second, it wasn't meaningless to me and others. You made a direct declaration to this board and to me. It wasn't just a fanciful thought in your mind only to you. You made it publc. And it wasn't vague and it had no caveats. It was a lie and meets the criteria for a definition of a lie. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a premeditated lie.

1. to make an untrue statement. 2. to create a false or misleading impression.

Well, you certainly made an untrue statement and you certainly gave me and others a false impression. It's not good to live in this denial. And it doesn't build a bridge to help people understand your overall thoughts."


Ok, well you can just continue on this path, it really doesn't pertain to the conversation.

"Well, then you can understand how "You can count on me" doesn't really mean very much in this specific instance. What you really mean is "You can count on me, unless I arbitrarily just change my mind.""

Not my fault the mods haven't turned on my sig, I sent the email sometime yesterday afternoon.

"This point is either beyond you or you're just too stubborn right now to admit it. I don't believe it is the first. You're too smart. I know my argument and you didn't interpret it correctly. The sentience step is another step to me. Do you speak like this in your classes? Do you talk this way to your friends? Do you have any teeth left? I suspect if your friend says, "I like very rich ice cream, but I don't like Coldstone ice cream," you would respond, "Yes, you do like it. Coldstone is very rich and therefore it is one and the same.""

No, I know exactly what your point was. My point was that my jump was completely logical, because those arguments are on in the same, even though you may not have known that. Arguing cold stone is the same as rich ice cream isn't even comparable, you may not like their singing.
This post was edited on 3/7 11:53 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
OK, it was obvious, but I'm going to explain why this is a bogus analogy. It's "preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed." There's the problem. The play "Hamelt" never would have survived if it was written this way, just as life would never survive if the code was written this way. In this silly scenario of course it would be written, but this scenario doesn't exist. It's preserving letters that happen to be in place. If the book took a mere 200 years to compose it never would have been composed or kept around long enough to magically finish because there was nothing worth keeping but random letters until it was all put together. Similarly, life never would have developed because it would have never survived the millions of years because random pieces of the code wouldn't have made it viable for even one single step. The play isn't viable unless it's virtually all there and neither is life.

No, the truth is maintained. It's statistically impossible for one single cell to develop randomly. And nobody has, nor will they ever be able to truly explain it. It is one of the evolutionsts' greatest leaps in faith. And reading futile attempts to explain the first RNA/DNA, let alone a single cell is pure mysticism. It's like reading the Catholic Church's theory on the immaculate conception.

Read the 2nd link in that post since you think you have debunked the first one.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Those in their respective fields are often obsessed with their own self-importance and their findings in their field are "fact." I believe there is a gigantic conflict of interest going on. The world doesn't believe it to be a law for a good reason, and so does a growing body of scientists. The world accepts laws when they are laws. They don't fight the law of gravity. It's just a theory and therefore may be scrapped some day. And as I've said on here many times before, I believe that is an eventuality."

You believe their is a conflict of interest because your side has failed to introduce any valuable evidence. Science is not at all the same as religion. When there is conflicting evidence that firts the scientific method, people will notice. The ID scientists don't even deal with science.[/B]
I guess to each his own. I don't think evolutionists have brought forth even one single piece of evidence ever for macro evolution. Not one. And ID scientists deal with plenty of science. That's why they are called scientists.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"You previously referred to it as genetic material. It is not. I don't see how it is any more "self-replicating" than gravity inducing a big rock to fall down and make more rocks. And I don't see it as genetic material any more than I see a falling rock "pyramid material." The distance and steps to become so are vast. I suppose this theory means that if we just set down a bunch of automobiles on the right planet and let them continually pollute it with hydrocarbons there would eventually be humanoids on the planet."

Again, you are grossly misrepresenting what is going on. I have a couple of links in this thread that provide solid scientific evidence on how the process goes.[/B]
I know. I reject them. I want to hear it in your own words on this board and then you and I will debate it.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"First, just because you deem it meaningless, doesn't make it not a lie. Second, it wasn't meaningless to me and others. You made a direct declaration to this board and to me. It wasn't just a fanciful thought in your mind only to you. You made it publc. And it wasn't vague and it had no caveats. It was a lie and meets the criteria for a definition of a lie. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a premeditated lie.

1. to make an untrue statement. 2. to create a false or misleading impression.

Well, you certainly made an untrue statement and you certainly gave me and others a false impression. It's not good to live in this denial. And it doesn't build a bridge to help people understand your overall thoughts."


Ok, well you can just continue on this path, it really doesn't pertain to the conversation. [/B]
And an irrefutable path it is. And it does pertain to our conversation on whether you lied or not. And truth is a big deal when people are dealing with each other and trying to assimilate what the other is saying.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"This point is either beyond you or you're just too stubborn right now to admit it. I don't believe it is the first. You're too smart. I know my argument and you didn't interpret it correctly. The sentience step is another step to me. Do you speak like this in your classes? Do you talk this way to your friends? Do you have any teeth left? I suspect if your friend says, "I like very rich ice cream, but I don't like Coldstone ice cream," you would respond, "Yes, you do like it. Coldstone is very rich and therefore it is one and the same.""

No, I know exactly what your point was. My point was that my jump was completely logical, because those arguments are on in the same, even though you may not have known that. Arguing cold stone is the same as rich ice cream isn't even comparable, you may not like their singing.[/B]
They are not the same. I knew the argument before you were born. If you would listen you would see I have taken it a step further and have therefore made a differentiation and have used it for years. But you won't listen and instead tell me what my argument is. You'll never be able to convince another person what their thoughts are. They simply know them and you do not.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Read the 2nd link in that post since you think you have debunked the first one.
Post your belief on what the link basically says and then I will refute it also. Links are lazy. And no more copying and pasting from your high priests. I want to hear it in your own words.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:33 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"They are not the same. I knew the argument before you were born. If you would listen you would see I have taken it a step further and have therefore made a differentiation and have used it for years. But you won't listen and instead tell me what my argument is. You'll never be able to convince another person what their thoughts are. They simply know them and you do not."

The argument has developed since then with new evidence. You are choosing to ignore it. I can't change that so and its becoming pointless now with an endless cycle of the same old replies.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Well, then you can understand how "You can count on me" doesn't really mean very much in this specific instance. What you really mean is "You can count on me, unless I arbitrarily just change my mind.""

Not my fault the mods haven't turned on my sig, I sent the email sometime yesterday afternoon.[/B]
But are you telling the truth? You could be lying. Plus, it would be a piece of cake to put it in at the bottom every time. It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it. Why are you waffling? Make up your mind here. Is it the mods fault now, or is it as you admitted earlier, that you don't want to do it, that is, it's too Mr. Hawkish for you?
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it.

I don't understand how this could be the case. Not from the poster who vowed -- not once, but twice -- that he had made his last post on this issue, only to return with a sufficient volume of words to fill up an encyclopedia set.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Loog,

Have you noticed the gist of the vicious little circle he is in? Here's what I see.

- Only scientists who believe in evolution are qualified to dispense "fact" on origins.

- And only if one believes in evolution can they be considered a true scientist.
I don't see how he can possibly escape it.
This post was edited on 3/7 12:27 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Loog,

Have you noticed the gist of the vicious little circle he is in? Here's what I see.


- Only scientists who believe in evolution are qualified to dispense "fact" on origins.

- And only if one believes in evolution can they be considered a true scientist.
I don't see how he can possibly escape it.

This post was edited on 3/7 12:27 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Ain't circular logic grand?

Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories. To try and elevate it to the level of "fact" is absurd.
 

GoHawkeyes811

HR MVP
Aug 20, 2004
1,284
1
36
This is ridiculous. Hounded, you keep telling Iowahawkeyes1986 to open his mind. Why can you not see for yourself that you are not opening your mind to anything he is saying as well? Don't offer advice if you are not going to take your own advice, seriously.

I'm not taking any sides, this is just from observation of the thread.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories.

Are we back to this ignorant view of "theory" as pertaining to a scientific context?

Really, loog, you may think that God mysteriously planted all those fossils and magically made them hundreds of millions of years old, but come on. And yes, it is far different from many economic theories.

There was a National Geographic some years ago (or even more recent) that had an excellent definition of theory as it pertains to science. It would behoove you to find this so you don't look quite so foolish with the educated set.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it.

I don't understand how this could be the case. Not from the poster who vowed -- not once, but twice -- that he had made his last post on this issue, only to return with a sufficient volume of words to fill up an encyclopedia set.

Does it really matter if he posts again? Does THAT diminish the force of his argument?
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

The argument whether evolution is a theory or a fact is an invalid comparison. Evolution is a scientific theory that has explained the factual evidence of scientists for more than a century. All facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge. Under a strict definition, a scientific theory should not be called a "fact" even though it explains all known facts and has survived the test of time. There is always the possibility that a scientific theory will be updated or changed as new evidence is discovered. The theory of evolution assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved. It does not deal with the origin of life, and it does not presuppose the absence of a creator or God. Although the origin of life is often included in debates about evolution, it is a very different topic that does not have all the empirical evidence of biological evolution. Scientific explanations for the origin of life are more properly referred to as hypotheses rather than scientific theories. Intelligent design is a non-scientific argument or assertion that life "owes its origin to a master intellect."



http://waynesword.palomar.edu/evolutio.htm#fact
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. However, it was stated in this thread that the theory of evolution is a "fact". To me that is a completely inaccurate and invalid statement. So I guess your buddy eyes86 has no scientific acumen.
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it.

I don't understand how this could be the case. Not from the poster who vowed -- not once, but twice -- that he had made his last post on this issue, only to return with a sufficient volume of words to fill up an encyclopedia set.

Does it really matter if he posts again? Does THAT diminish the force of his argument?

I don't know. You tell me. If someone has been SHOWN to break their word multiple times, does that diminish the value of their word? I suspect that he's making up statements and assertions in several places in this thread.

That's what liars do. They lie.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. However, it was stated in this thread that the theory of evolution is a "fact". To me that is a completely inaccurate and invalid statement. So I guess your buddy eyes86 has no scientific acumen.




Its a fact as far as it pertains to science. There is no credible argument against it. It is accepted as fact and that is what I have been arguing this entire time Loog. They will continue to adjust the theory and that is why you will not hear it called a "fact" directly, but there is so much evidence for it that the details are not a major factor anymore. The overall theory is correct and I've said this numerous times.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. However, it was stated in this thread that the theory of evolution is a "fact". To me that is a completely inaccurate and invalid statement. So I guess your buddy eyes86 has no scientific acumen.




Why do you say he is my buddy? Are you again making illogical leaps? And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by Rambam99:


Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it.

I don't understand how this could be the case. Not from the poster who vowed -- not once, but twice -- that he had made his last post on this issue, only to return with a sufficient volume of words to fill up an encyclopedia set.

Does it really matter if he posts again? Does THAT diminish the force of his argument?

I don't know. You tell me. If someone has been SHOWN to break their word multiple times, does that diminish the value of their word? I suspect that he's making up statements and assertions in several places in this thread.

That's what liars do. They lie.


Must be why I backed my arguments up with links, huh Loog?

Also, I love how you ignore the comment he made right after that post that dealt with organic molecules and how ridiculous it was. I was perfectly justified in coming back.
This post was edited on 3/7 1:27 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by Rambam99:


Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
It sounds like you just can't be counted on to do it like you said you could be counted on to do it.

I don't understand how this could be the case. Not from the poster who vowed -- not once, but twice -- that he had made his last post on this issue, only to return with a sufficient volume of words to fill up an encyclopedia set.

Does it really matter if he posts again? Does THAT diminish the force of his argument?

I don't know. You tell me. If someone has been SHOWN to break their word multiple times, does that diminish the value of their word? I suspect that he's making up statements and assertions in several places in this thread.

That's what liars do. They lie.


Well, haven't some of us claimed to have retired from this board? And aren't we all back?

But to answer the question, no, his comments of "being the last post" do not detract from the force of his argument. And for you to focus on that aspect implies that you are unable to concentrate on the merits of his argument. It may not be the case, but it does imply it. Likewise the whole "liars lie" approach.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.

I understand that completely. I am merely arguing that within the scientific realm, evolution is pretty rock solid.
This post was edited on 3/7 1:28 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. However, it was stated in this thread that the theory of evolution is a "fact". To me that is a completely inaccurate and invalid statement. So I guess your buddy eyes86 has no scientific acumen.




Its a fact as far as it pertains to science. There is no credible argument against it. It is accepted as fact and that is what I have been arguing this entire time Loog. They will continue to adjust the theory and that is why you will not hear it called a "fact" directly, but there is so much evidence for it that the details are not a major factor anymore. The overall theory is correct and I've said this numerous times.

This is all nonsense and double speak. First you tell me that it is a "fact as far as it pertains to science" and that it is "accepted as fact". Then you tell me that the details will probably continue to be adjusted, which is why "you will not hear it called a 'fact' directly."

So it's a fact, but it's still changing, which is why no one will call it a fact.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
Furthermore, no one with any science acumen would even use the word "fact" when describing the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. However, it was stated in this thread that the theory of evolution is a "fact". To me that is a completely inaccurate and invalid statement. So I guess your buddy eyes86 has no scientific acumen.




Its a fact as far as it pertains to science. There is no credible argument against it. It is accepted as fact and that is what I have been arguing this entire time Loog. They will continue to adjust the theory and that is why you will not hear it called a "fact" directly, but there is so much evidence for it that the details are not a major factor anymore. The overall theory is correct and I've said this numerous times.

This is all nonsense and double speak. First you tell me that it is a "fact as far as it pertains to science" and that it is "accepted as fact". Then you tell me that the details will probably continue to be adjusted, which is why "you will not hear it called a 'fact' directly."

So it's a fact, but it's still changing, which is why no one will call it a fact.

Doesn't surprise me that you still don't understand a scientific theory. The overall theory is correct(which is why it is so solid), little bits of it can be changed(and thats what theories do) and thats why if you follow strict definition, it isn't a fact. But the overall theory is rock solid and it isn't going away.

Small changes in the theory do not change its overall validity.
This post was edited on 3/7 1:34 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
This is all nonsense and double speak.

No, it is not. It seems that you are now being intentionally dense.

I haven't (nor will I) read all of the past posts. Do you have a specific complaint with the theory of evolution? Do you not think organisms evolve? Or is your ire reserved for the distinction of "fact" vs. "theory"?
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?

All I have said is that he is wrong in calling the theory of evolution a "fact". That is an inaccurate and invalid statement. And it sounds like you agree with me on this point.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
This is ridiculous. Hounded, you keep telling Iowahawkeyes1986 to open his mind. Why can you not see for yourself that you are not opening your mind to anything he is saying as well? Don't offer advice if you are not going to take your own advice, seriously.

I'm not taking any sides, this is just from observation of the thread.
I do take my own advice. I think you've just skipped around and haven't read the big picture here. I fully admit macro-evolution is a theory that is worth investigating. I was an evolutionist. By his own words he won't even consider the other side. Perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree.
This post was edited on 3/7 1:38 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by Rambam99:
This is all nonsense and double speak.

No, it is not. It seems that you are now being intentionally dense.

I haven't (nor will I) read all of the past posts. Do you have a specific complaint with the theory of evolution? Do you not think organisms evolve? Or is your ire reserved for the distinction of "fact" vs. "theory"?

I don't doubt that organisms evolve. An obvious example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

My main ire is reserved for the distinction between fact and theory. e.g. consider the following statement: "Man evolved from apes over millions of years." No matter how hard anyone tries to spin it, this is NOT a fact.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
This is ridiculous. Hounded, you keep telling Iowahawkeyes1986 to open his mind. Why can you not see for yourself that you are not opening your mind to anything he is saying as well? Don't offer advice if you are not going to take your own advice, seriously.

I'm not taking any sides, this is just from observation of the thread.
I do take my own advice. I think you've just skipped around and haven't read the big picture here. I fully admit macro-evolution is a theory that is worth investigating. I was an evolutionist. By his own words he won't even consider the other side. Perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree.

This post was edited on 3/7 1:38 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

Science can't consider your side, it isn't testable.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:
And does his misuse of "fact" forgive your ignorance of "theory"?

All I have said is that he is wrong in calling the theory of evolution a "fact". That is an inaccurate and invalid statement. And it sounds like you agree with me on this point.


Oh no, that is definitely not all that you said.

To wit: Evolution is far from a "fact". It is a theory, no different from scores of other scientific, economic, etc., theories.

You heretofore have expressed a much higher degree of "argumentative integrity". Why are you slipping now?
 

Hawk-A-Loogey

HR Legend
Jan 30, 2002
13,300
229
63
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.

I understand that completely. I am merely arguing that within the scientific realm, evolution is pretty rock solid.

This post was edited on 3/7 1:28 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

pfffft. Saying that something is "pretty rock solid" is much different from saying that something is a "fact".
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.

I understand that completely. I am merely arguing that within the scientific realm, evolution is pretty rock solid.

This post was edited on 3/7 1:28 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
No, you're doing exactly what NPR says not to do. You're calling macro evolution a FACT. And you have done it constantly in this thread.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by Hawk-A-Loogey:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by Rambam99:
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.

I understand that completely. I am merely arguing that within the scientific realm, evolution is pretty rock solid.


This post was edited on 3/7 1:28 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}


pfffft. Saying that something is "pretty rock solid" is much different from saying that something is a "fact".

Again, scientist pretty much do accept it as a fact because the theory is so solid. It is the basis for almost all of our science in that area. If it weren't so rock solid, why would we continue to use it? Must be that it is really good at explaining the the world around us.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:


Originally posted by Rambam99:
Its a fact as far as it pertains to science.

It would behoove you to use more precise terminology here. As you have seen, there are some here who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and when you use such a stark term as scientific "fact", not only is it overreaching but it leads to the inevitable retort of "but evolution is only a theory!".

Evolution is NOT a scientific fact; it is a scientific theory. It is a well examined theory. But please don't muddy the waters by calling it a scientific fact.

I understand that completely. I am merely arguing that within the scientific realm, evolution is pretty rock solid.


This post was edited on 3/7 1:28 PM by iowahawkeyes1986

if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

No, you're doing exactly what NPR says not to do. You're calling macro evolution a FACT. And you have done it constantly in this thread.

See post above.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:


Originally posted by GoHawkeyes811:
This is ridiculous. Hounded, you keep telling Iowahawkeyes1986 to open his mind. Why can you not see for yourself that you are not opening your mind to anything he is saying as well? Don't offer advice if you are not going to take your own advice, seriously.

I'm not taking any sides, this is just from observation of the thread.
I do take my own advice. I think you've just skipped around and haven't read the big picture here. I fully admit macro-evolution is a theory that is worth investigating. I was an evolutionist. By his own words he won't even consider the other side. Perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree.


This post was edited on 3/7 1:38 PM by HoundedHawk

if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}


Science can't consider your side, it isn't testable.
I would disagree. Process of elimination is a form of testing a hypothesis. And neither is macro evolution or the Big Bang by your standard.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
"
I would disagree. Process of elimination is a form of testing a hypothesis. And neither is macro evolution or the Big Bang by your standard."


Actually the big bang is testable(parts of it, as well as for macro), because of cosmic background radiation and other observations made of the universe

Intelligent Design isn't testable, no matter how badly you think it should be.

Here is the scientific method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

ID definitely doesn't fit with this
This post was edited on 3/7 1:47 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Again, scientist pretty much do accept it as a fact because the theory is so solid. It is the basis for almost all of our science in that area. If it weren't so rock solid, why would we continue to use it? Must be that it is really good at explaining the the world around us.
First, "pretty much do" is not the same as accepting something as an actual fact. Admit your error, young buck.

Second, then by your standard our theory is also a fact because it is much better to us at explaining the world around us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts